Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2019: Volume 39

Since the 1970s, gender has been a research focus in the field of comparative and international education (CIE) (Unterhalter, 2014). The extensive work on the issue of gender and access to education by academics and practitioners has proven instrumental in elevating the issue to the forefront of global educational policies (Assié-Lumumba, N. & Sutton, M. (2004). Global trends in comparative research on gender and education. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 345–352). More recently with the goal of increased enrollment achieved and global improvements in gender parity, the focus has shifted from access to agency and empowerment (Assié-Lumumba, N. & Sutton, M. (2004). Global trends in comparative research on gender and education. Comparative Education Review, 48(4), 345–352). From policy to practice, CIE appears to advocate for inclusiveness, interdisciplinarity, and contextualization in research and practice. This chapter interrogates the assumption that CIE promotes these same concepts of gender equality, empowerment, and inclusiveness in the field itself. Through the use of data published in leading CIE journals, the following questions are addressed: How are issues of gender and power manifested and addressed within CIE-related research? Is research published in the field of CIE shifting and adjusting to changing societal gender norms? A critical examination of the role of gender in CIE scholarship and practice challenges the assumption that CIE professionals and researchers lead by example. In other words, although CIE professionals and researchers “talk the talk”, do they really “walk the walk” when it comes to gender and education?

Similar to joining comparative education and international education, bridging theory to practice is a hallmark of the field of comparative and international education (CIE). Despite the commonality of citing “theory to practice,” a disconnect exists between comparativists who develop theories and practitioners who supposedly implement them. This article questions the use and meaning of this phrase. Specific questions are posed to explore how “theory to practice” is referenced in CIE publications: What does “theory to practice” mean? Who are theorists? Who are practitioners? Do practitioners know they are practitioners? How do practitioners apply theory? Perspectives from comparativists and practitioners are supplied in response to these guiding questions. These opposing perspectives demonstrate the continued disconnect between and misunderstanding of “theory to practice.” Further research is requested to better understand how these questions are currently represented in the field and how the field should evolve to better reflect theory and practice in the future.

Working in the world of international education consulting, while being fresh out of a PhD in comparative and international education (CIE), has magnified the challenges in bridging academic CIE research and practical work. When brought into practical work, CIE academic research brings a critical lens to what can often be a normative field, while clarifying theoretical lineage and concepts, supporting the operationalization and conceptualization of terms, and strengthening survey and questionnaire development. Despite the usefulness of CIE academic research to strengthen practical projects, programs and research, access to academic research in CIE limits its use on numerous levels. First, physical access to articles and books through costly subscriptions is an often-discussed challenge. Access to academic language, particularly for second language learners, carries an additional barrier. Finally, practitioners’ ability to wade through lengthy, dense, and technical articles, while identifying the key components of academic research, is a skill that is developed over time and with training.

While the reasons for the divide are common to many fields, CIE academic research has the added challenge of being situated in the highly practical field of education. However, this makes practitioner access to CIE academic research all the more crucial. Along with discussing issues of relevance and access, this discussion chapter highlights the exploration of alternative sources of academic research content to help academics and other scholars in CIE make their research more accessible. In this way, this discussion proposes that academic research and practice meet in the middle. Not only by increasing physical access to research through the various means discussed but also by using scaffolding approaches to academic research dissemination with the aim to increase the capacity of practitioners’ access to and use of CIE academic research. These approaches not only serve to bring academic research into the visibility of practice, but also to support practitioners’ skills in accessing and applying academic CIE research more easily.

This piece discusses the research–practice gap in comparative and international education, postulating that the gap occurs due to the different operating spheres of the researcher and end user, the lack of accessibility of research, and its unidirectional nature. Only through close linkages across research, policy, and practice can we close the gap and ensure better education outcomes for those around the globe. Research application is not automatic but requires working in partnership with policymakers and practitioners. Drawing on my own experience across the research, policy, and practitioner spheres, I discuss three ways researchers can narrow the research–practice gap by: (1) better understanding the social sphere; (2) producing accessible, engaging content, including by storytelling; and (3) creating more partnerships with end users, such as Communities of Research.

Those who design and implement teacher professional development (TPD) in international donor-funded, low-resource environments often lack a strong foundation of evidence-based research to guide their work. This lack of a research base raises questions about the efficacy and quality of TPD in low-resource settings. Educational practitioners need, and want, quality research to improve the interventions they offer teachers. However, for reasons specific to academic research, the nature of donor funding, and the on-the-ground conditions in many developing countries, conducting evidence-based research is often fraught with difficulties. This article argues that research in donor-funded, low-resource contexts must be conceptualized, funded, and produced differently than is presently the case. Thus, the article proposes recommendations, from an educational practitioner perspective, to guide researchers in terms of framing their research, the research methods used, and communicating and disseminating findings.

Comparative and international education (CIE) is a field connected through research and practice. While educators use research-based data from CIE, they often seek practical application for the classroom setting. Therefore, NGOs and international organizations play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between research and practice. They provide essential resources, professional development, and context for educators and students as they develop critical skills, knowledge, and dispositions for our interconnected and interdependent world. As educators work toward cultivating global competency in students, they will continue to rely on NGOs and international organizations for support. These resources are most applicable when contextualized for diverse school communities and supported by local and global collaboration. Ultimately, educators, students, and other key stakeholders will maximize educational outcomes by utilizing the resources and opportunities provided by NGOs and international organizations.

This chapter explores the complexities surrounding the Malaysian education system in terms of race relations, political need of reform, and geographical diversity. In terms of race relations, the establishment of vernacular schools which was initially intended to cater to the sensitivities of the multi-ethnic character of the Malaysian population has continued the racial division of students in primary schooling along the lines of ethno-linguistic heterogeneity. This chapter also looks at the Malaysian Education Blueprint, an ambitious plan to reform the education system, which stemmed out of political necessity from the previous government in addressing the public’s disapproval of the education system. Finally, the inherent geographical diversity in Malaysia has further magnified the differences of educational attainment of the different layers of the Malaysian community. Upon addressing these complexities, this chapter then takes an imaginary position on empowering Malaysian teachers as powerful agents in addressing these complexities by equipping them with comparativist insights. By streamlining efforts to provide a platform for intra-country comparative research, this chapter concludes that previous education reforms in Malaysia were unsuccessful due to the lack of research-based evidence.

Does education affect economic outcomes, and if so, how? Does education finance interact with public policy? And how does education finance policy contribute to the development of a new strategic planning for the next generation, if at all? This chapter reviews recent conceptual and methodological developments in the field of economics and finance of education. The review covers these two major topics and is divided into three sections. First is an overview of the field, including current trends in economics of education in both developed and developing countries. This section incorporates themes such as returns to investment in education, costs of education, education and economic growth, and education market, choice, and incentives. The second section focuses on finance of education and current debates on equality, equity, and efficiency in educational finances. The third section presents summary and discussion. The discussion will bring to light the issues, challenges, opportunities, and future directions of the field. Where appropriate, examples and empirical evidence from both developing and developed countries are presented.

The human development and capability approach (HDCA) and its associated participatory method is receiving growing attention as a useful conceptual development for comparative international education. HDCA challenges the economism so prevalent in world development thinking and, instead, looks at development as a process of enhancing persons’ incrementally achieved substantive freedoms from deprivations. The centrality of the person replaces the centrality of income growth.

The application of HDCA to the study of the role of education that promotes social justice change is illustrated by using an empowerment-capability framework to the long-term study of the benefits of village schooling for rural girls in western China.

Using HDCA to identify influences on social change, we derive a much more nuanced and valuable multi-dimensional view of human development, which enables us to draw broad implications for more effective policy. National policies should use a multi-dimensional informational base including equality, sustainability, and non-market dimensions of well-being as well as market production.

Does education still serve as a great equalizer today? Does today’s worldwide expansion of schooling foster a global economic convergence? These questions need fresh answers at this time of growing concern over inequality. Past studies have abundantly documented the effects of schooling on within-country inequality, but we know little about corresponding effects on between-country inequality. We fill this gap by drawing on two innovations. The first is to formulate a theory of global inequality that integrates international differences in both the quantity and quality of education. The second, methodological, innovation is to propose and apply a method for decomposing trends in global inequality in GDP in terms of five social forces that include the quantity and quality of schooling. Analyses focus on the 1990–2010 period. The results confirm the continued salience of education: Trends in education account for as much as 80% of the 1990–2010 decline in between-country GDP inequality. However, we find a declining significance of “quantity” over “quality.” In sum, education remains salient as a global equalizer but its salience increasingly depends on bridging international differences in school quality.

Over the past few years, assemblage theory or assemblage thinking has garnered increasing attention in educational research, but has been used only tangentially in explications of the nature of comparative and international education (CIE) as a field. This conceptual examination applies an assemblage theory lens to explore the contours of CIE as a scholarly field marked by its rich and interweaved architecture. It does so by first reviewing Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) principles of rhizomatic structures to define the emergence of assemblages. Secondly, it transposes these principles in conceiving the field of CIE as a meta-assemblage of associated and subordinated sub-assemblages of actors driven by varied disciplinary, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary interests. Finally, it interrogates the role of Big Data technologies in exerting (re)territorializing and deterritorializing tendencies on the (re)configuration of CIE. The chapter concludes with reiterating the variable character of CIE as a meta-assemblage and proposes ways to move this conversation forward.

This chapter explores the colocation of ethnographic and discourse approaches in gender-focused research in comparative and international education. Drawing from the authors’ scholarship in the fields of girls’ education, women’s empowerment, and international education policy and development, this chapter highlights opportunities to interrogate culture in qualitative data through ethnographic and discourse approaches. The chapter concludes with reflection and future directions for these authors and for the field.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 4.2 calls for all girls and boys to have access to high-quality early childhood education by 2030. This global mandate establishes a new framework of accountability to increase access to preprimary education in low- and middle-income countries through measurement and reporting. As with other global indicators, however, the measurement of preprimary education access is more complex and nuanced than may be supposed. This data-oriented chapter delves deeply into the measurement of SDG 4.2 and explores the accuracy of the indicator being used: the adjusted net enrollment ratio, one year before the official age of primary entry. The chapter analyzes data from both education management information systems (EMIS) and household surveys to triangulate information about children’s access to preprimary education before they begin primary school. The analysis concludes that the indicator used to measure SDG 4.2 is overestimating access to preprimary education, because it includes large numbers of children who enroll in primary school before the official age of entry. This suggests that parents “vote for preschool” by sending their under-age children to primary school when access to affordable preprimary is limited. Implications for SDG measurement and preprimary policy are discussed.

Over the past 20 years, the primary focus of education policy and programming in low- and middle-income country contexts has shifted from access to quality. There has also been a laudable increase in the amount of available research about education quality in low- and middle-income countries, and a growing emphasis placed on incorporating research- and evidence-based activities and approaches into donor-funded education programs, particularly for early grade reading. Reviews of early grade reading (EGR) programs and their level of impact, however, particularly when programs are implemented at large scale, may leave some practitioners, policy makers, and donors dismayed. Effect sizes and impacts of the programs are often positive, but the absolute gains in reading performance are not as dramatic as we would like, despite the implementation of evidence-based approaches.

In education policy and implementation literature, the decoupling of policy and implementation, and the messiness involved in putting research into practice in education, are well documented. In this chapter, the authors propose the idea of “satisficing,” as it has been defined in policy and implementation literature, as a useful lens for considering the apparent decoupling of actual impacts and anticipated outcomes for programs that have adopted research- and evidence-based approaches. Using examples from EGR programs in African and Asian contexts, the authors argue that “satisficing” occurs at multiple levels, including the classroom, school, district, and even the program implementation (i.e., contractor or grantee) levels. The authors also argue that this lens has important implications for education program design and research.

This chapter examines the context for the implementation of the global commitment to early childhood education (ECE) within the framing of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) under SDG 4.2. We first define the concept of ECE as broadly understood in the field of education and in practice related to a focus on education of children. The essay adopts chronological age of children served outside of the formal school system, which has traditionally been recognized as basic education, to represent the population captured under ECE in both pre-school and pre-primary settings. UNICEF identifies those ages 3–6 to fall into this category. We present an exploration of the challenges and opportunities presented by multiplicity in multilateral agencies and other agencies driving the international initiatives around advancing ECE and the means by which they promote education opportunities for children. We offer a comparative perspective on the delivery, types, and funding mechanisms of ECE services in both developing and developed country contexts, which informs the possibilities for the realization of the SDG goal of inclusive quality education for all. An examination of the socio-cultural and economic context of accessibility to inclusive and equitable quality ECE is also presented. An overview of settings within which ECE is provided is interrogated within differing national contexts. We conclude with challenges and opportunities for sustained accountability, monitoring and evaluation of SDG 4.2 interventions from a comparative perspective.

The history of Nepal gives some insight into its current status as a diverse and multilingual nation with more than 123 languages. Multilingualism is part of the founding philosophy of the country but since it was unified in 1768, government attitudes to language and language education have fluctuated. Though historically education in Nepal has been delivered exclusively in the Nepali language and, more recently, in English, the Government of Nepal is now committed to introducing mother tongue-based, multilingual education (MLE).

Nepal has among the lowest literacy rates in the world (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015) and the government seeks to turn this trend around, particularly for students who do not speak Nepali as a mother tongue. The commitment to strengthening mother tongue-based MLE features prominently in the Constitution of Nepal (2015), the Act Relating to Compulsory and Free Education (2018) and the School Sector Development Plan (MOEST, 2018). This new constitution declares that “all the mother tongues spoken in Nepal shall be the national language” (2015 article 6).

Implementing these policy commitments in over 120 languages across seven provinces and 753 municipalities is the next challenge for the fledgling democracy. As a “wicked hard” policy area, doing so will require a solid understanding of local attitudes, beliefs, resources, and capacities. This chapter gives a unified review of the history, languages, ideologies, beliefs, and trends that currently influence MLE in Nepal and are likely to play a role into the future.

This chapter offers a selective review of the emerging Indigenous Pacific educational research from 2000 to 2018. The Pacific region is home to many and various cultural groups, and this review is an opportunity to celebrate the consequent diversity of thought about education. Common threads are used to weave this diversity into a set of coherent regional patterns. Such threads include the regional value to educational research of local metaphor, and an emphasis on relationality or the state of being related as a cornerstone of education, both in research and as practice. The relationship between indigenous educational thought and formal education in indigenous contexts is also addressed. The review pays attention to educational research centered in home islands and that which focuses on the education of those from Pacific Islands in settler societies since connections across the ocean are strong. Because of the recent history of the region, developments are fast paced and ongoing, and this chapter concludes with a sketch of research at the frontier. Set within the context of an area study, the chapter concludes by suggesting what challenges the region has to offer in terms of re-thinking the field of international and comparative education.

Three distinctive domains of inquiry in comparative and international education (CIE) point to epistemic fault lines that simultaneously enable and disable the possibilities for social transformation in the cultural ecologies that demarcate, but also entangle, the so-called Global South and the North. Historically, these domains of inquiry – language/multilingualism, education, and development – engage arenas in which ideas about wellbeing, social arrangements, and the politics of knowledge (and of power) are constantly constructed, contested, and renegotiated. This analysis pinpoints some of the discursive technologies, which guarantee that active scholarly innovations and differentiation proceed in ways that ultimately leave intact the territorialized regionalizations of development differences. It reflects on ongoing fieldwork from the South to highlight three spheres of social control, and struggle, illustrative of the coloniality of difference and the expanding institutionalization of learning (as schooling) in an era of global interventionism. These loci – the sources of knowledge traditions, the sites of its enactment, and the power of knowledge transactions – represent overlapping activation points through which education interventions both stimulate and stultify social transformations. Specifically, the sources, sites, and power of knowledge offer empirical and discursive tools for historiographic reconsideration of the role of linguistic diversity and education in social change processes, and, crucially, for shifting critical focus from merely the occidentality of contemporary education traditions to the universalism of its social imaginaries. In this critical reading of new understandings of language(s) as invention, therefore, lies analytic opportunities for rethinking epistemic dilemmas in linking education and “development” in CIE scholarship.

School choice is a global phenomenon with significant variations in terms of conception, design, and viability. In the city of Buenos Aires, State funding to the private sector of education allows for free choice. The purpose of this study is to analyze the values that are at stake in the family process of school choice. I draw on the theory of cultural evolution (Inglehart, 2018) to analyze the interviews. I interviewed 30 parents who live in the city of Buenos Aires and had to choose school for their children. It was possible to infer four categories that condense the materialistic and post-materialistic values: preeminence of materialistic values relative to security and protection; preeminence of materialistic values relative to academic achievement; preeminence of post-materialistic values relative to socialization and preeminence of post-materialistic values relative to political concerns.

While migration has been part of the human experience for close to 200,000 years, we currently live in an era of mass migration. Children under the age of 18 are impacted by migration in multiple ways: a quarter of all children in OECD countries have an immigrant parent; in large cities across the developed world, between 40% and 65% of children are from immigrant or refugee families. Immigrant children and children of immigrants are the fastest growing demographic group in schools around the world. For at least the past two decades, evidence demonstrates that children and/or their parents arrive with high expectations for schooling and their children’s future aspirations, in general the longer the contact with schooling in their new countries, the lower their well-being. In this chapter, we will look at the data behind this evidence in a variety of contexts of displacement. We will highlight emerging new directions in education for newcomer/migrant populations as we look to promising practices in schools for migrant youths, their peers and their school communities.

There is a gap in scholarly investigation when it comes to issues of academic integrity and corruption in higher education. The major research question this chapter addresses is: How is corruption in higher education in the United States and Russia reflected in the media? The frequency with which the media reports on higher education corruption varies. The variation in reporting can be attributed to particular reforms and major changes undertaken in the higher education sector as well as in-depth reporting of some high-profile cases. The scope of problems reflected is very broad, but some important forms of corruption are either underreported or overlooked. The major problems, types, and forms of higher education corruption are nation-specific: in Russia they are bribery in admissions and grading, while in the United States they are fraud and embezzlement of state funds, among others. These types and forms of corruption in general correlate with those analyzed in the scholarly literature. This chapter also presents some policy recommendations for both Russia and the United States regarding anti-corruption efforts in higher education.